Science and Research Committee on Sept. 15th, 2025

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thanks.

Professor Pinker, I'm going to throw the same question over to you. I just want to say that I really enjoyed your piece “Harvard Derangement Syndrome”, because I think it actually brought to light some of the concerns that folks have about when the attacks become blanket attacks. You used the example of the impact on Jewish professors as a perfect example of how, when you're using, perhaps, one angle, there is a broader impact on research, on science and on folks whose funding is getting cut.

Can you talk a little bit about how we dial down that type of rhetoric and why it's important to dial down that type of rhetoric in Canada so that we don't fall into the same trap? Can you then also follow up on the question I asked Professor Shariff?

[Steven Pinker]

I certainly agree with Professor Shariff's quoting my friend Nicholas Christakis about how, once the universities politicize themselves, they have opened the door to being, themselves, targets of political attacks. It is essential for universities to keep their reputation as disinterested pursuers of the truth, not captive to a particular ideology, because the threats can come from both directions. In the United States, the threats now from the federal government are worse than the threats from within, because the government is so much more powerful, but the threats are coming from both directions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up. Thank you.

Now we will move to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

You have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are here today to take part in this important study.

My first questions are for Professor Pinker.

Don't equity, diversity and inclusion policies risk replacing merit with political considerations, thereby undermining public trust in science?

If science is perceived as ideological, doesn't that also risk undermining public trust, even when it comes to issues like climate?

[Steven Pinker]

Yes, I did not get the translation, but I think I can remember enough from my Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal French to understand your question.

Indeed, the influence of ideology on science means that it's not the best science if there are a priori convictions that are putting a thumb on the scale. The great danger is that, as Professor Shariff and I have mentioned, it undermines trust in science. The public has to know that their tax dollars are going to the best possible science. They have to know that the people conducting the science are open to criticism and open to a diversity of viewpoints, so that they trust what the scientists say, and that scientists not become just a priesthood in white coats that is competing with other influencers but actually have grounds for their claims to be taken seriously.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, would it be possible to interrupt Mr. Pinker's testimony to ensure that the interpretation is working properly? He said he couldn't hear the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can I ask the clerk to look into that? Is the interpretation good now?

Okay, we'll start the clock. Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Professor Pinker, you said that grants were awarded too late to correct social inequities. At what point should intervention take place earlier in the process, for example, in terms of education, training or scientific culture, to truly expand access to science and reinforce excellence?

[Steven Pinker]

First and foremost is the quality of science education, starting in elementary school.

The second is to be sure that science itself does not seem to have a political colouring that would turn off the part of the population from a different part of the political spectrum. If science is seen as a left-wing activity, people on the right will blow it off. That's probably the main reason. In fact, that is certainly the main reason for rejection of scientific consensus in the studies that I have seen. It is not because of scientific ignorance; it is because of perceived ideological contamination of science.

The third is not easy for governments to manipulate, and that is cultural norms as to whether science is an attractive career option. That depends on peer influence, on culture and on many things that government policy may not easily be able to control directly: Is science cool?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College regarding race-based admissions, do you believe it's morally and scientifically wrong to award research chairs or grants on the basis of gender or race rather than scientific merit or excellence?

[Steven Pinker]

The American Supreme Court decision referred to university admissions. It's widely expected that it will be extended to promotion, to hiring and to granting. We are in the midst of quite a bit of turmoil in the United States, including the extreme slashing of all support for basic science, a slashing of the indirect costs that universities incur in the process of spending dollars, and rather arbitrary cuts to many programs.

I expect that grants that are targeted on the basis of sex or race will be in the crosshairs, targeted by an extension of the Supreme Court decision.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

You argue that viewpoint diversity is more crucial to scientific progress than the demographic diversity promoted by equity, diversity and inclusion policies.

Why is that, especially since it helps correct the cognitive biases that affect any scientific community?

[Steven Pinker]

Diversity of viewpoints is a complicated problem, because you don't want the diversity to be so broad that you have people who support a flat earth or people who deny the 2020 U.S. election. There is an infinite number of viewpoints, many of which should not be discussed in a university context, because they have no grounds for belief. It is a challenge. I don't think it's an impossible challenge, but how do you draw a boundary around the ideas that are worth taking seriously without excluding those who just don't agree with your viewpoint? It's a challenge that I don't think universities or funding agencies have solved, but it is one that they should take seriously.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

As a cognitive psychologist, you described confirmation bias, which limits our ability to see our own errors.

How does viewpoint diversity actually help the scientific community to correct its biases and move toward excellence?

[Steven Pinker]

Diversity is indispensable, simply because, even though we all have our blind spots, we're a little better at pointing to the other guy's blind spots. If I'm not seeing something, someone else will tell me that I'm wrong. That is why academic freedom—freedom of speech—is of such an essential value in the conduct of science: not because professors deserve privileges, but because it is essential to doing their jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up. Maybe you will get an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to our second round, and we will go to MP Ho for five minutes.

MP Ho, please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is directed to Mr. Pinker.

Do you agree that universities should be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, including discussion of dissenting opinions?

[Steven Pinker]

Absolutely. It's essential.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It is essential.

You mentioned how DEI quotas are a form of discrimination, effectively, a form of reverse discrimination. Do you agree that doing this DEI check box and all of these affirmative statements that they're now requiring in Canada has a chilling effect on research because it's effectively shutting off half of the population from being able to participate in an honest way?

[Steven Pinker]

I think it can chill research in two ways. One of them is by excluding sectors of the population based on their sex, ethnicity or race. The other is that, on top of the preferences, there's a regime that it is a criminal offence to criticize the policy of preferences. We've seen that in the United States and in Canada, where people who cast doubt on the policy, who argue against it, get censured, fired or cancelled. That adds another layer of chill, probably a more severe chill.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Well, that's really unfortunate to hear, that these Liberal top-down policies effectively shut out half of the population from being able to participate and block high-quality research from being produced at some of the top institutions in the country.

When it comes to, let's say, astronomy, physics or even medicine, there are limited government resources to be granted. You mentioned that it's a zero-sum game in research. Shouldn't the best person for the job get it, or the person with the best potential? I see we're doing cancer research, and we're trying to find a treatment for a type of cancer that could save many lives, millions of lives, potentially. Shouldn't the grants go to the best person or the person with the best potential to achieve those aims?

[Steven Pinker]

Yes, I believe that is the most defensible policy.

Now, at the margins, there are often judgment calls about proposals when, at the end of the day, you throw up your hands and say, “I don't know which one is better.” In cases like that, if you tilt it so that under-represented groups get the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that is harmful, as long as they are within the envelope of the best-quality research.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

The race and the sex of the researcher shouldn't have any effect on the quality of the research. We're studying cancer, physics or something like that, so by imposing this top-down ideology, Liberal ideology, it almost feels like they're trying to.... It's political. They're politicizing it and implementing it into our great institutions, our universities and colleges. Do you agree that it is potentially a venue for Liberal ideology to permeate and to be implemented?

[Steven Pinker]

I guess I would have to ask whether “liberal” has a capital L or a small l in this context.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It has a capital L.